1994 PLP 1937 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BADAR‑UZ‑ZAMAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1937 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmad; J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BADAR‑UZ‑ZAMAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1937 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1937 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad; J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1937 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BADAR‑UZ‑ZAMAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riaz‑ul‑Hassan Gillani for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Saleem Khan Khichi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1993. .
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Rr. 8, 12, 13 & 14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Rejection of votes‑‑‑Election Tribunal excluded votes from count on the ground that voters had not marked specific symbol but had marked on more than one symbols, thus, voter's intention could not be gathered‑‑‑Election Tribunal, hold, acted lawfully and no interference in the decision was merited. Sher Afghan v. Aamir Hayat 1987 SCMR 1987 rel.
Judgment & Decree
From the packet of cancelled votes: 5 Recovered from the packet of 1 Noor Elahi (Lantern) From the main packet 99 Out of 100, one rejected with mark of thumb‑impression. From the packet of rejected 2 votes: Total: 173 From the main packet 82 Out of 88, 1 rejected with the mark of thumb‑impression, 2 rejected as without sign or stamp, 3 rejected with the converted ward number and beyond counterfoils. From the main packet 86 From the packet of rejected votes 1 Total; 169 In the light of the above chart the Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent Badar‑uz‑Zaman had a lead of four votes, and thus, he was declared as successful candidate.
4. I have heard the learned counsel at length, and have also gone through the facts of the case. In my view the decision taken by the Tribunal in the light 8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court is in consonance with the law on the subject and, therefore, it does not merit interference by this Court. Hence, this petition is dismissed. A.R.K/M‑1610/L Petition dismissed.